Sermons

Preacher: Rev. Charles J. Stephens

Opening words by Marta Flannagan

In this time we turn our thoughts to how we can:

Touch and be touched,
Love and be loved,
Forgive and be forgiven,
Heal and be healed,
So that the goodness of our lives is a shared blessing.

Meditation / Ojibwa Prayer (A Call to Character, Colin Greer & Herbert Kohl, Editors, p. 321)

Grandfather,         Look at our brokenness.
We know that in all creation      Only the human family
Has strayed from the Sacred Way     We know that we are the ones.
Who are divided         And we are the ones
Who must come back together           To walk the Sacred Way.
Grandfather,         Sacred One,
Teach us love, compassion and honor
That we may heal the earth        And heal each other

Reading: Town Commons of New England, 1640-1840  By JOHN D. GUSHING

In the residential section, a meetinghouse was erected on the plot reserved for the ecclesiastical society, and almost automatically it became the focal center of all community activity, religious, social and political. Furthermore, investigation will usually prove that in the great majority of cases these meetinghouse lots became the town commons of later years.

The story of the transformation of the meetinghouse lot into a town common is part of the history of each community; but in general it may be said that the activity of the church society both directly and indirectly influenced the development of the common and often determined the appearance of the entire town center as well. First, the meetinghouse, as the center of local activity usually became the place where most public business, religious and civil, was conducted. Since the members

of the society constituted a major portion of the town’s population, the distinction between church and state at the municipal level was largely theoretical, and no one could object to the use of the meetinghouse for town meetings.
The Common
Sermon by the Rev. Charles J. Stephens
August 3, 2014 – Castine UU Congregation

Ours is a New England congregation on the Common. And, we refer to our newsletter as “The Common.” I have thought about the significance of naming the UUCC newsletter “The Common” and what being the congregation on the Common has for UUCC – ever since becoming your Interim Minister.

The word common with its Indo-European roots when combined – as in a common nail, common place, common sense or even labeling someone as a common man or commoner we get the understanding that we are talking about something that is ordinary, regular, familiar and widespread.

However, the idiom, in common, means belonging equally with and by everyone. In relation to the community as a whole, having something in common indicates that which is held in common is for the common good. Something held in common is to be available for the use of everyone.

The concept of the common good is found to be prominent early in the Christian writings. In the Epistle of Barnabas, it is written: “Do not live entirely isolated, having retreated into yourselves, as if you were already [fully] justified, but gather instead to seek together the common good.” The goal was coming together and everyone equally benefiting.

The common good was an essential concept in Augustine of Hippo’s “City of God.” Augustine in turn was influenced by the philosophy of Aristotle. Aristotle’ philosophy also influenced Roman Catholic theologian, Thomas Aquinas concerning the common good. The concept of The Common Good became standard in Roman Catholic moral theology.

Our own UU president, Peter Morales, spoke of the common good in his sermon, “We Are One.” In the sermon, he said, “We are people who have always affirmed human diversity. We have always looked to the future and seen new possibilities. We must do so again. Let us be the people who break down the arbitrary barriers that divide us from them. We are one, and love and hope will guide us. Let us, together with all our brothers and sisters, build a new way.”

Here in New England, the concept of “The Common,” refers to a place or a space. Land was reserved in each town or city for the building of the ecclesiastical society, which would also become the focal center of community activities be they religious, social or political. As John Gushing wrote, “…in great majority of cases these meetinghouse lots became the town commons of later years.” Thus it is here in Castine.

I didn’t know until a recent Board Discussion, that the road on this side of the Castine Common separating the Meeting House from the Common, originally ran alongside this side of the (to my left facing the congregation) Meeting House, totally on the other side of the meeting house, thus this Meeting House was clearly understood and seen as part of the Castine Common.

In England, “the commons” referred to land which was held in common as opposed to privatized land which was enclosed land, owned by individuals as private property. In medieval England, the common referred to land of the manor that was legally part of the estate owned by the lord of the manor, but over which certain manorial tenants held certain rights.

I find it fascinating how eventually the concept of the commons came to refer to other resources essential things a community has rights to and access to. A local Maine example of this, I am told, is how the lobster fishery is operated here in Maine. There is the willingness (even if not always happily) of Maine’s lobsterers to uphold and support the rules that conserve the lobster industry. In essence, the lobstermen agree in common with some government intervention on how to sustain their common-pool resource. If one or a few abuse the agreement, it hurts everyone.

Once you start thinking about it, there are so many things that are held in common by people in our country, like public education created for the common good, town roads and city water systems, and public works in general are created for the common good. Peter Barnes, a businessman and environmentalist refers to commons as having two characteristics: first they are gifts and secondly they are gifts that are shared.

We enjoy these gifts as members of a community rather than as individuals. To be sure there may be a fees attached to some gifts so they can be regenerator. Some gifts we hold in common are basic parts of the ecosystem like the air we breathe and the water we drink and use in so many other ways. But there are also gifts we share like languages and music, town, state and national parks and even the internet at least in theory.

It seems like there are always some who want to control, own and profit from some of these gifts, be it the gift of safe water to drink, the internet, and the air waves that convey radio and television stations. And there are often those who use commonly held gifts to the point of abusing some of the gifts we hold in common, be it the air, the earth and the rivers they pollute or the airwaves they want to control for profit.

A couple of present day examples of competition for natural resources which we hold in common here in Maine which we hold in common come to mind. First, there is a heated debate about how certain portions of the ocean, bays and streams ought to be used. Some people want to use portions of these for traditional recreation, natural beauty and fishing. Some other people want to use portions of these for aquaculture or the raising of sea food. As the availability of wild caught sea food diminishes we can expect this competition to increase.

Another disagreement has taken shape around how the winds and the tides could be used to produce renewable electricity. This could replace some of the electricity created through the burning of coal, oil and fracked gas. While it does create renewable, clean energy others see it creating an eye swore, sound pollution and a potential danger to birds and other animal life. What is the common good in this situation? How will we decide how to regulate what happens for the common good?

Some people see regulations more of a problem and a negative than as a positive solution protecting the Common Good. Take for example the debate going on between those who want to eliminate bear baiting, and hunting bear with traps and hounds. Both sides appeal to the common good. Another conflict is occurring because a growing number of people who want to stop manufacturers from using phthalates in the production of food containers and countless other products. The same is happening because a growing number of people want genetically altered foods to be labeled, but the large food companies don’t want to do it. You can, I am sure, think of many other issues where people differ on what creates the best use of that which we hold in common.

The Common Good and the agreement about how we are to use things that are held in common has and continues to influence moral theology and religious ethics in regards to social justice within our local communities, our state and the larger world. An influential Unitarian Universalist theologian, the late James Luther Adams wrote that, “A faith that is not the sister of justice is bound to bring us to grief. It thwarts creation, a divinely given possibility; it robs us of our birthright of freedom in an open universe; it robs the community of the spiritual riches latent in its members; it reduces us to beasts of burden in slavish subservience to a state, a church or party – to a self-made God.”

Adams went on to posit that the “…tenet of the free person’s faith is that the commanding, sustaining, transforming reality finds its richest focus in meaningful human history, in free, cooperative efforts for the common good.” To me, this says, that our lives as free people are only fulfilled when we are in right relations with each other working for the common good of humanity.

If our religious orientation, our ethical values are not joined with justice toward others we will surely be brought to grief because we will not be at one with the universe. What do we members of the UU Cong in Castine hold in common? This building, the use of the land upon which it is built, our treasured place on “The Common,” and all that we have built up together over the centuries. Prominent among these are the common values spelled out in our UU Principles and your UUCC Covenant. And, we hold in common the gift of the community or communities in which we live. And living in this state and this country and the gifts we hold in common extend much further. Ultimately, we recognize that we are part of the interconnected web of existence which has no borders.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence refers to three examples of “unalienable rights,” “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” These are things that all people have as unalienable rights because they are given to all by the creator or we might say by the universe itself. Thomas Jefferson saw these rights as unalienable and as such available to all people and rights that are impossible to take away from someone or be given up by someone.

It seems clear to me that our U.S. Declaration of Independence is talking about gifts that are to be held for the Common Good. To be sure, talking about “The Common” here in New England, we are refer to a place or a space that is available for us to view and enjoy. “The Common” is not owned by any one person it is owned by everyone. If anyone or corporation violates “The Common” by damaging it or dumping garbage and thus polluting it, we all have the right and responsibility to protect it because we hold it as a common gift for all people.

There is an ongoing debate about what is included in the gifts which are held in common. As a natural resource becomes endangered, it is understood more and more as one of the gifts we hold in common. The unalienable gift of life depends upon the availability of clean water which all sentient beings depend on to live. Similarly, the gift of life depends upon the availability of clean air and as such is a gift which we hold in common?

I remember a Board meeting that was held this past year in the Parish House. Someone working for the town of Castine came by and posted a sign on our door. Of course we were curious about what it said. Someone got up and read it. The sign asked everyone to check their oil tanks for a possible leak that was polluting the waste water. We checked our tank and it wasn’t leaking, but it reminded us that when there is oil leaking into the town waste water it negatively affects the common good.

The Common Good includes things like the air we breathe, the water we drink, the food we eat and the purity of the land upon which we live. And when we really think about it, the concern for the common good includes the health and wellbeing of all people as well as the natural world which supports us. Think about the regulations that work to prevent invasive plants like Milfoil from taking over Maine lakes. Doing so makes it clear that there is a need for regulations that protect the common good.

These are gifts that according to common law or common understanding cannot be privatized or restrictively owned by individuals. There is a common understanding that the gifts our generation holds in common ought to be passed on to future generations in the same or better condition than we received them.

It is common sense knowledge that those who are upriver shouldn’t put things in the river that pollute and damage the water for those who live downriver. There is common sense knowledge that says that it is wrong for an individual or corporation to put damaging things into the air or on property they “own” which will blow or flow over to where other people are forced to consume the pollutants and get sick.

OK, now I may be moving over into dangerous territory for a preacher, but I don’t think so. What about the thousands of children seeking asylum in our country? Should we shelter them or rush to deport them? From what you hear from the news and from our political leaders, you would assume that most Americans say we should deport them as fast as possible.

NOT TRUE! But a survey this past week showed that most Americans say the U.S. should shelter, not rush to deport, child migrants. (according to a new survey by the Public Religion Research Institute, Cathy Lynn Grossman | July 29, 2014)  And those sympathetic views are given across the political and religious spectrum. A significant majority of Democrats, Independents and Republicans all “…favor offering support to unaccompanied children while a process to review their cases gets underway.” The same is true for most major religious groups.

I am reminded of the 907 German Jews aboard the M.S. St. Louis in 1939 who sought a place to escape Nazi persecution. The ship was shunned by Cuba, the United States and Canada. One man remembers as a child sailing along the Florida coast as Miami’s city lights disappeared into the dusky distance. “Nobody wanted us,” Dr. Messinger, … a retired physician in Buffalo, N.Y. said in an interview with the National Post. “We were Jews, we were expendable…It was terrible of Canada and the US, of all countries, to not let us in.” Do we want the same said of our generation?

How can we come to solutions that reinforce the Common Good? It is best to start locally, with those we know and understand. We can use the groups that we are already part of, like UUCC, but also other organizations that are working for the Common Good. We may not always understand the problems in the same way, let alone come to the same conclusion about what will be best for the Common Good of humanity. But that doesn’t give us an excuse for not trying.

The late Harry Messerve, honored and regular guest minister here suggested that “to extend the boundaries of local community, the essential quality (that is needed) is imagination.” Harry says that “We have to project ourselves into the minds and feelings of others and into the conditions under which they live. Then we have to reflect on how we might act in similar situations.” (Community and the Individual, Harry Meserve, p. 34)

I close with a familiar story (from Doorways to the Soul ed. Elisa Davy Pearmain, p. 80) that cuts to the chase.

“Long ago a woman wanted to see for herself the difference between heaven and hell. The monks in the temple agreed to grant her request. ‘First you shall see hell,’ they said as they put a blindfold over her eyes.

When the blindfold was removed the woman stood at the entrance to a great hall. The hall was filled with round tables each piled high with the most delicious feast – meats, vegetables, fruits of every kind, and desserts to make your mouth water. The woman noticed that there were people seated just out of arm’s reach of the tables. Their bodies were thin and their pale faces convulsed with frustration. They held (spoons) chopsticks almost three feet long. With the (spoons) chopsticks they could reach the food, but they could not get the food back into their mouths. As the woman watched, a hungry angry sound rose into the air. ‘Enough,’ she said. ‘Let me see heaven.’

When the blindfold was removed the second time, the woman rubbed her eyes. For there she stood again at the entrance to a great hall with tables piled high with the same sumptuous feast. Again she saw the people sitting just out of arms reach of the food with those long (spoons) chopsticks.

But the people in heaven were plump and rosy-cheeked, and as she watched, the musical sound of laughter filled the air. And then the woman laughed, for now she understood the difference. The people in heaven were using those three-feet-long (spoons) chopsticks to feed each other.”